From: Rick McCallister
Message: 51654
Date: 2008-01-20
> I know what the experts have to say.cybalist@yahoogroups.com<mailto:cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
>
> I challenged Torsten, who relies on Hechelheim, to
> come up with
> _any_ ARCHAEOLOGICAL evidence for what we might or
> might not imagine about agriculture.
>
> Do you know of any?
>
> Patrick
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Rick
> McCallister<mailto:gabaroo6958@...>
> To:
>
><proto-language@...<mailto:proto-language%40msn.com>>
> Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2008 2:54 PM
> Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Sard
>
>
> There are plenty of theorists out there that claim
> that women where gatherers while men were hunters
> due
> to mobility issues, since women had to nurse
> infants.
> And that gathering involved a circuit and that due
> to
> this circuit semi-agricultural patches developed
> where
> edible plants were found, etc. Grain cultivation
> may
> have developed this way. But check out what the
> professionals have to say.
>
> --- Patrick Ryan
>
> wrote:tgpedersen<mailto:tgpedersen@...<mailto:tgpedersen%40hotmail.com>>
>
> > I have been interested in archaeology all of my
> > life; and I am certain no credible evidence
> exists
> > for believing that women invented agriculture.
> >
> > If Heichelheim thinks this is so, he is a master
> of
> > self-delusion.
> >
> > Patrick
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From:
>
>cybalist@yahoogroups.com<mailto:cybalist%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:cybalist@yahoogroups.com<mailto:cybalist%40yahoogroups.com>>
> > To:
> >
>
>
> >=== message truncated ===
> > Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2008 2:15 PM
> > Subject: [tied] Re: Sard
> >
> >
> > > > Read the article again. Wheat gluten
> > >
> > > No, *you* read it again. Gluten is gluten,
> there
> > is no such thing
> > > as "wheat gluten".
> > >
> > > 'wheat gluten' means 'gluten found in white'.
> > You mean 'wheat'?
> >
> > > > makes a few people sick;
> > > A few people?? Quote:
> > > "
> > > How many possess these specific genetic risk
> at
> > a 'carrier' state?
> > > Certainly more than 5% of the actual
> population.
> > In conclusion we
> > > have a wide population of 'gluten-reactants'
> in
> > Europe (EC): at
> > > least 1 million cases of total intolerance to
> > gluten - an
> > > estimated similar amount of 'gluten sensitive'
> > people - 10-15
> > > times more 'carriers' of the risk of becoming
> > gluten intolerant.
> > > "
> > > Imagine what the numbers were before fatal
> > gluten became staple
> > > diet.
> > >
> > > I saw no justification for 5%.
> >
> > Then you should read the references he provides.
> >
> > > > these same people could have eaten millet,
> > sorghum, rye, rice (a
> > > > grass, too) without a problem.
> > >
> > > Except for rye.
> > > But they didn't. So why is that relevant?
> >
> > > The people who were very slightly gluten
> averse
> > could have eaten
> > > rye without great problems.
> >
> > We are talking someone who had serious problems
> > with it and who didn't
> > know the cause of their suffering. They exist
> even
> > today.
> >
> > > Have you forgotten your argument?
> > No.
> > > It was, in a nutshell, that gluten aversity
> > shows that humans were
> > > not early grain eaters.
> >
> > That's right. Why do you bring that up?
> >
> >
> > > > > Our evolutionary success is tied to the
> fact
> > that men will eat
> > > > > anything that does not eat them first.
> > > >
> > > > No they won't. The Chinese eat plenty of
> stuff
> > we don't and
> > > > never did.
> > > >
> > > > Gosh, I thought the Chinese qualified as
> > 'men'. How foolish of
> > > > me!
> > >
> > > The Chinese do not qualify as 'all men', which
> > you implied, since
> > > there are people who are not Chinese.
> > >
> > > Why not react to what I write rather than to
> > what you think I
> > > imply?
> > >
> > That's actually what you wrote. There's no other
> > way to interpret it.
> > I assumed it was a mistake.
> >
> > > Who could be idiotic enough to suggest that
> > Chinese are "all
> > > men'?????????
> >
> > Besides you I don't know any, but I'm confident
> > they exist.
> >
> >
> > > > > Man, the hunter, the keen observer of
> animal
> > behavior, would
> > > > > have certainly noticed rut, and the
> > regularly timed appearance
> > > > > of animal births after it.
> > > >
> > > > It didn't matter to them.
> > > >
> >
> > > > You want to get a crowd of little children
> > together? Stage a
> > > > male and female dog going at it.
> > > >
> > > > Of course it mattered. Sex has always had a
> > great fascination
> > > > for our lubricious ancestors.
> > >
> > > Sex was not connected to forces that made the
> > world go round.
> > >
> >
> > > Utterly unbelievable.
> >
> > Value judgement.
> >
> > > > I, personally, have no doubt that seeds and
> > roots were collected
> > > > to be eaten long before the idea of
> > agriculture developed.
> > > >
> > > > I don't think your lack of doubt counts as
> an
> > argument.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > If you think this is my judgment alone, I
> > suggest you check the
> > > > literature a little more closely.
> > >
> > > Here's some literature for you (quote from
>